T Nation

White House Playing Hard Ball

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/09/administration-warns-command-control-regulation-emissions/

The Obama administration is warning Congress that if it doesn’t move to regulate greenhouse gases, the Environmental Protection Agency will take a “command-and-control” role over the process in a way that could hurt business.

The warning, from a top White House economic official who spoke Tuesday on condition of anonymity, came on the eve of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s address to the international conference on climate change in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Jackson, however, tried to strike a tone of cooperation in her address Wednesday, explaining that the EPA’s new powers to regulate greenhouse gases will be used to complement legislation pending in Congress, not replace it.

“This is not an ‘either-or’ moment. It’s a ‘both-and’ moment,” she said.

But while administration officials have long said they prefer Congress take action on climate change, the economic official who spoke with reporters Tuesday night made clear that the EPA will not wait and is prepared to act on its own.

And it won’t be pretty.

“If you don’t pass this legislation, then … the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area,” the official said. “And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it’s going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty.”

Climate change legislation that passed the House is stuck in the Senate, but the EPA finding Monday was seen as a boost to the U.S. delegation in Denmark trying to convince other countries that Washington is capable of taking action to follow through with any global commitments.

The economic official explained that congressional action could be better for the economy, since it would provide “compensation” for higher energy prices, especially for small businesses dealing with those higher energy costs. Otherwise, the official warned that the kind of “uncertainty” generated by unilateral EPA action would be a huge “deterrent to investment,” in an economy already desperate for jobs.

“So, passing the right kind of legislation with the right kind of compensations seems to us to be the best way to reduce uncertainty and actually to encourage investment,” the official said.

Republicans fear that the EPA will ultimately end up stepping in to regulate emissions – though many oppose the congressional legislation as well. They had urged Jackson to withdraw the finding in light of leaked e-mails from a British research center that appeared to show scientists discussing the manipulation of climate data.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., ranking Republican on the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming, said Tuesday he is going to attend the Copenhagen conference to inform world leaders that despite any promises made by President Obama, no new laws will be passed in the United States until the “scientific fascism” ends.

“I call it ‘scientific fascism,’” Sensenbrenner said during a press conference with fellow climate change skeptics. Sensenbrenner said, “The U.N. should throw a red flag” on scientists who support global warming to the exclusion of dissent.

Administration officials, though, said the e-mails do not change the debate.

Former Vice President Al Gore, a leader in the movement on man-caused climate change, told CNN on Wednesday that the e-mails in questions were 10 years old and taken “out of context.”


hurrah for fascism!

The State is said by some to be a necessary evil; it must be made unnecessary - Benjamin Tucker

[quote]John S. wrote:

The Obama administration is warning Congress that if it doesn’t move to regulate greenhouse gases, the Environmental Protection Agency will take a “command-and-control” role over the process in a way that could hurt business. [/quote]

If this was actually said it demonstrates the complete disconnect that Obama and his team of ivory towerists have relative to the unique relationship that business has with actually getting Obama a second term.

If I were in Congress I’d say go ahead make my day. If this economy isn’t ticking like a fine swiss watch in exactly two years there will be no Obama second term. That Obama, or his people, cannot see that if you hurt business you’ve hurt the economy and your own reelection bid is quite funny.

My personal opinion on Obama’s personality type is that he would rather be a one-term President that rammed his vision through, built a monument to himself, drastically changed the US economy, greatly increased powers of the Federal Government, and for a cost of trillions perhaps reduced world temperatures by 1/20th of one degree by the year 2050, than be a “go-along, get-along” President who served two terms but never managed to impose his visions.

I wonder what the USSC will think of that. That’s where it will end up if they try it. They’ll fucking kill this place over a fucking myth.

gotta love all the non-elected organs of the executive branch presuming to legislate. gotta love those delusions of grandeur. and all them czars! o yea. love it.

[quote]pat wrote:
I wonder what the USSC will think of that. [/quote]

I would bet an ideological-line vote, with the “liberals” unanimously finding it just absolutely fine.

What with the Constitution being, according to them, a living document and all.

The “wise Latina,” of course, will be fine with it I predict.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
My personal opinion on Obama’s personality type is that he would rather be a one-term President that rammed his vision through, built a monument to himself, drastically changed the US economy, greatly increased powers of the Federal Government, and for a cost of trillions perhaps reduced world temperatures by 1/20th of one degree by the year 2050, than be a “go-along, get-along” President who served two terms but never managed to impose his visions.[/quote]

 I concur.  All signs point to Obama being a true believer.  It is admirable.  However, it is also frightening.  His pursuit of socialized health care is tantamount to political suicide.  Bill Clinton realized this and dropped the issue.  I am sure political advisers haven't missed this point.  Obama just isn't listening.  He is on a mission.  America voted for change and here it is.  Don't be so shocked when the invoice arrives.  Our children are going to be paying for our shortcomings.  

  On another subject, Global Warming is such a political driven agenda.  I just want to scream "Dorthy, go ahead an look behind the curtain.  There is no wizard.  You want to know who is behind the curtain.  Al Gore and all his freaking business partners.  Here is a guy who received atrocious grades in science classes and we gave him a Nobel Prize.  Wake the hell up.  Get your ass back to Kansas."          

Starting to sound more like his buddy Chavez everyday.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
My personal opinion on Obama’s personality type is that he would rather be a one-term President that rammed his vision through, built a monument to himself, drastically changed the US economy, greatly increased powers of the Federal Government, and for a cost of trillions perhaps reduced world temperatures by 1/20th of one degree by the year 2050, than be a “go-along, get-along” President who served two terms but never managed to impose his visions.[/quote]

That’s difficult to believe that any politician, even a committed ultra liberal like Obama isn’t thinking of a second term, it’s in their blood. Granted he looks like he’s committing political suicide right turning around, somehow, in spite of the ineffectiveness they’ve shown on how to turn it.

Come on now, this “global warm” thing is affecting the polar bear population.
Al Gore said so.
Although he did omit that the population is rising and those pictures of Polar bears in dire need of help floating on small ice packs were taken in “AUGUST” when they have melted since FOREVER!!!

Smoke and mirrors, all good magicians use them.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
My personal opinion on Obama’s personality type is that he would rather be a one-term President that rammed his vision through, built a monument to himself, drastically changed the US economy, greatly increased powers of the Federal Government, and for a cost of trillions perhaps reduced world temperatures by 1/20th of one degree by the year 2050, than be a “go-along, get-along” President who served two terms but never managed to impose his visions.[/quote]

That’s difficult to believe that any politician, even a committed ultra liberal like Obama isn’t thinking of a second term, it’s in their blood. Granted he looks like he’s committing political suicide right turning around, somehow, in spite of the ineffectiveness they’ve shown on how to turn it.
[/quote]

I didn’t say that I don’t think he would like a second term: I expect he lusts after it greatly.

What I was saying was that given the choices of not going after objectives such as the above and winning a second term thanks to avoiding those minefields by doing as Clinton did, or accomplishing such goals in a single term at the possible cost of not getting a second, I see him as picking the latter.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
My personal opinion on Obama’s personality type is that he would rather be a one-term President that rammed his vision through, built a monument to himself, drastically changed the US economy, greatly increased powers of the Federal Government, and for a cost of trillions perhaps reduced world temperatures by 1/20th of one degree by the year 2050, than be a “go-along, get-along” President who served two terms but never managed to impose his visions.[/quote]

That’s difficult to believe that any politician, even a committed ultra liberal like Obama isn’t thinking of a second term, it’s in their blood. Granted he looks like he’s committing political suicide right turning around, somehow, in spite of the ineffectiveness they’ve shown on how to turn it.
[/quote]

I didn’t say that I don’t think he would like a second term: I expect he lusts after it greatly.

What I was saying was that given the choices of not going after objectives such as the above and winning a second term thanks to avoiding those minefields by doing as Clinton did, or accomplishing such goals in a single term at the possible cost of not getting a second, I see him as picking the latter.[/quote]

True Bill but you do remember Clinton never got 50% of the vote. Perot threw things off a little.

That is true.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
That is true.[/quote]

My point is that it is very difficult for a Democrat to win under normal circumstances. Carter, Clinton, and Obama all ran against unpopular presidents who 1. Pardoned Nixon, 2. Raised taxes, and 3. Increase spending and was involved with a upopular war that the country initially wanted. that big economic downturn also helped. I doubt Obama wins if the economy didn’t tank.

Demographics and situations have changed over time.

For example, when Reagan ran against Carter, anyone that had a job paying anything at all really paid income tax, and found Democrat tax policies to be reason to not vote for that party.

Now, approximately 50% of all persons earning income pay either no or virtually no income tax. And the Democrats promise them “tax relief” in the form of issuing them CHECKS that are called “tax credits” but in fact are welfare, as no tax is being paid at all.

So there are millions of voters who now have no reason at all to oppose higher income tax rates or favor decreases: instead, they like the idea of tax increases because the increases will be such that only those earning more than they do – above the median – will have to pay. (Most of them don’t stop and think that if their employer, being probably one of those persons, has to pay higher taxes, this may result in their losing their job or not getting a raise.)

And there are other factors as well.